no title

Don’t block public access

Police dash-cam videos serve the public and law enforcement

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Also in Opinion

Subscribe to The Dispatch

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift!
Enroll now.

Monday July 28, 2014 4:06 AM

A recent Ohio appeals-court ruling that cruiser dash-camera videos are confidential “
investigatory materials,” rather than open public records, threatens Ohioans’ ability to monitor
police and defend against abuse.

This decision is no favor to law-enforcement officers, either. They often rely upon these videos
to prove they behaved professionally and even heroically under difficult circumstances.

For these reasons, police agencies would be wise to promptly comply with requests to turn over
these videos — which have been regarded in practice as a public record — and to ignore a single
court’s opinion as overreach.

The 12th District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against a Cincinnati-area government
watchdog who’d requested a dash-cam video of a drunken-driving arrest by a state trooper.

The State Highway Patrol said that video and an impaired-driver report were part of a criminal
investigation, and therefore exempt from release. The court agreed.

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, called the decision “
disturbing,” and said it “would greatly limit the ability to assess the performance of
law-enforcement agencies.” He fears it will open up “a vast new opportunity for government
secrecy."

While the ruling is effective only within the 12th District, the fear is that it will provide
police a precedent to say “no” when videos cast them or someone powerful in a bad light.

He noted courts typically have held that records that initiate an investigation, such as 911
calls, are public records, unlike those generated once an investigation has begun.

The dashboard cameras aren’t turned on only when a crime is in progress. They are recording even
if an officer stops to help someone with a flat tire. They are a routine part of police work.

Further, these videos hardly meet the exceptions for withholding a public record: They don’t
identify an uncharged suspect or a confidential source; disclosure doesn’t put a victim or an
officer’s life in danger, and it doesn’t disclose confidential law-enforcement techniques.

And if these videos are so confidential, Greiner asks, why does the patrol routinely post them
on YouTube?

This decision, however, likely won’t be appealed. That’s because an Ohio Supreme Court case
earlier this year made it harder for people to recover legal fees expended to access public
records. Awards of attorney fees are now mandatory only if a court has to order the records be
turned over. This means agencies can stonewall: Deny a records request, wait to be sued and then
hand over the records before the court can act. If they are quick, they can stick the person they
wronged with substantial legal fees.

In the 12th District case, the man who filed the appeal ultimately got the video and other
records after the drunken-driving court case ended. A further appeal would be on his own dime.

The judicial branch is making it increasingly difficult for people of ordinary means to monitor
their government and defend against abuse of power. The compounding effect of these court cases is
alarming.

Police and other public officials should remember that hiding public records undermines public
trust.